Harry de Boer CHEPS University of Twente

1
Principles of Good GovernanceThe case of the
Netherlands

• Harry de Boer (CHEPS University of Twente)

2
A general observation about the last decade in
Western European higher education Enhancing
institutional autonomy, stressing accountability
throughout the system, introduction of market
orientation (quasi markets) It seems that
institutional management has more power and
responsibility now than ever before. The
university as an organisation is becoming
increasingly important, within which executive
leadership and management has been strengthened.
3
Higher education institutions, in terms of
traditions, management, culture and support
structures, are poorly equipped to deal with the
challenges that are confronting them.Therefore,
the general argument goes, more professionalized
higher education management is needed to respond
to external changes.
4
At the same time, we witness skepticism at best
and complete distrust in management at worst.
Thus, to put it bluntly there is a belief that
strong management is required while at the same
time strong management can not trusted
5
Today, political leaders throughout Europe are
facing a real paradox. On the one hand, Europeans
want them to find solutions to the major problems
confronting our societies. On the other hand,
people increasingly distrust institutions and
politics or are simply not interested in them.
Yet people also expect the Union to take the lead
in seizing the opportunities of globalization for
economic and human development, and in responding
to environmental challenges().(White Paper
European Commission 2001)
6
Five principles underpin good governance and the
changes proposed in this White Paper openness,
participation, accountability, effectiveness and
coherence.
7
Openness. The Institutions should work in a more
open manner. Together with the Member States,
they should actively communicate about what the
EU does and the decisions it takes. They should
use language that is accessible and
understandable for the general public. This is of
particular importance in order to improve the
confidence in complex institutions.Participation
. The quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU
policies depend on ensuring wide participation
throughout the policy chain from conception to
implementation. Improved participation is likely
create more confidence in the end result and in
the Institutions which deliver policies.
Participation crucially depends on central
governments following an inclusive approach when
developing and implementing EU policies.
8
Accountability. Roles in the legislative and
executive processes need to be clearer. Each of
the EU Institutions must explain and take
responsibility for what it does in Europe. But
there is also a need for greater clarity and
responsibility from Member States and all those
involved in developing and implementing EU policy
at whatever level.Effectiveness. Policies must
be effective and timely, delivering what is
needed on the basis of clear objectives, an
evaluation of future impact and, where available,
of past experience. Effectiveness also depends on
implementing EU policies in aproportionate
manner and on taking decisions at the most
appropriate level.
9
Coherence. Policies and action must be coherent
and easily understood. The need for coherence in
the Union is increasing the range of tasks has
grown enlargement will increase diversity
challenges such as climate and demographic change
cross the boundaries of the sectoral policies on
which the Union has beenbuilt regional and
local authorities are increasingly involved in EU
policies. Coherence requires political leadership
and a strong responsibility on the part of the
Institutions to ensure a consistent approach
within a complex system.
10
The Dutch university sector

• 13 universities (plus Dutch OU)
• 9 general
• 3 technical
• 1 agricultural
• public institutions (but 3 legally private)
• some 190,000 students
• (Very) low levels of systemic diversity i.t.o.
  prestige, quality, research role etc.

11
Internal university governance Changes over the
years
1970
Representative Leadership
Council
Executive
1981
Mixed Leadership
Executive
Council
1997
Executive Leadership
Executive Board
Advisory Board
12
Thus,

• Introduction of executive leadership is a clean
  break with the past
• It gives - on paper - managers the right to
  manage (NPM)

13
Main bodies of the structure since 1997
14
Aims of the national Act (1997)

• Integration of governance and management
  authorities (Leitung und Verwaltung), i.e.
  concentration of powers
• transparency of authority relationships
• decisiveness and effectiveness of decision-making
• Enhancing institutional autonomy (universities
  are able to act as societal entrepreneurs)
• significant participation of students and staff.
• Cf. principles of good governance to large extent

15
Design of the national evaluation of the new
(1997) governance structure

• Assessing the achievement of the five main
  objectives
• University documents analysis and large-scale
  survey
• Survey among managers, council members, staff
  and students

16
General assessment of governance structure

• Average mark 6.38 (n1277)
• Governors (6.64) more positive than those
  governed (6.16)
• Among the governed Students (6.40) more positive
  than support staff (6.27) and academic staff
  (5.92)

17
Transparency

• Mixed picture
• Those involved in the universitys decision
  making (executives, council members, head of
  departments, etc.) believe that the organization
  is rather transparent
• They have a clear view of their own role and, to
  a somewhat lesser extent, the role of the others,
  with however one exception the Supervisory Board
• Also council members have the feeling that others
  dont know what the councils role and
  performance is

18
Transparency (2)

• Many staff and students not directly involved
  in decision making - dont know who takes the
  most important decisions regarding teaching and
  research
• And it is even more clear that they dont know
  how these decisions are taken

19
Concentration of powers

• General opinion is that the concentration of
  powers is an improvement compared with the past
  it contributes to the decisiveness of decision
  making
• In practice many constituencies are still
  involved in the universitys decision making
  several powers have been delegated consultancy
  informal decision making
• Especially at the lower levels several
  authorities are still fragmented

20
Authorities regarding teaching are fragmented
21
Institutional autonomy

• Have universities sufficient leeway to respond to
  external changes (or to act as independent
  societal entrepreneurs)?

22
The university can sufficiently anticipate on
external developments (regarding teaching)
23
Effectiveness efficiency

• Capacity of university to solve problems in a
  relatively short period of time, if possible with
  a minimum of resources (time)
• Managers have the impression that they indeed
  rule effectively
• Students and staff have serious doubts
• Nevertheless the universities have been rather
  successful in implementing big reforms (BaMa
  structure)
• However many, especially deans and council
  members invest a lot of time

24
Participation

• What it should be and what it is
• The effectiveness of representative councils
• The commitment of students and staff

25
The preferred meaning of full participation
26
The perceived meaning of full participation
27
Has the council a sufficient role in the
universitys/facultys policy development?

28
Are the councils able to control the general
policies?

29
The influence on the educational process is in
general
30
The influence on the contents of education is in
general
31
Governors are generally willing to make an
effort to solve problems of staff members

32
There are for me if I wanted to sufficient
opportunities to contribute to decision-making
33
The willingness of the board to inform the
council (unprompted)
34
Perceptions of the attitude of executives

• Are they seen as reliable, open, approachable,
  fair, communicative, etc.
• Executives hold the opinion that their attitude
  is fine
• Others involved in decision making have mixed
  feelings (divided opinions)
• Almost half of the UC members (47) think that
  executives have a bad attitude
• 58 of students and staff think that their
  executives have a good attitude 48 of the
  staff, however, think differently

35
Conclusions

• high variety in responses among governors and
  governed and within these groups
• overall mixed feelings, general positive attitude
  towards many elements of the new governance
  structure
• Critical, but certainly not negative feelings
  regarding the participation of staff and students
  in decision-making

36
Explanations?

• Good leadership implementing NPM without its
  negative aspects
• Clever academics using informal power to achieve
  objectives outside of the formal governance
  structure
• General acceptance of corporate-like governance
  structures
• Two points of serious concern the academic staff
  is the most negative in its perceptions, and the
  Supervisory Boards position, role and
  functioning is unclear

37
State Ministry Crown
Dutch University Governance
1997 onwards (MUB)
Supervisory Board
Secretary staff
Executive Board
Rector
Chair Vice
Deans
University Council(s)
Management team
Professors
Faculty Exec
Staff
Students
Academics
Faculty Council(s)
Departments
38
The next stop corporate governance?

• At present the Dutch ministry of Education is
  preparing a new national Act on higher education
• All universities are supposed to be established
  in terms of private law in order to enhance
  institutional autonomy even further
• Further deregulation
• The new steering concept is called Vertical
  supervision and horizontal accountability

39
The next stop corporate governance?

• A minimum of legal prescriptions universities
  may design their own structure, using not-legally
  binding codes of conduct or protocols (apply
  the code or explain principle)
• Protocols should reflect the principles of good
  governance
• A major concern is that this will open up new
  debates about structural and procedural aspects,
  while the substance of good governance will again
  be pushed aside for some years

40
The next stop corporate governance?
the focus should shift away from a sole focus on
questions of codification, representation and the
composition of the governing body to issues of
communication, roles, trust and the ability of
broader systems of governance to bring to bear
the most appropriate expertise and experience to
policy matters and to understand the conditions
under which a university can flourish. That is,
there is little point in addressing the form of
good university governance without touching on
its substance.